By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Graphics: Creativity vs. Realism

 

Creativity vs. Realism

Realism 10 5.95%
 
Creativity 99 58.93%
 
Both 59 35.12%
 
Total:168

I like realism sometimes. Farcry 3 for example is one of the most beautiful games I've ever played.

But really, I want games to take me places I could never go. Bioshock for example, I get to go to the bottom of a ocean city.

Games like Wind Waker, make me feel like I'm playing a cartoon.

I prefer games that are creative and abstract to realism.




Around the Network
hinch said:
TheShape31 said:
A high level of detail and creativity can go hand-in-hand. But the attempt at photorealism is the least creative avenue that an animator can take.

Realism and creativity, in my opinion, are mutually exclusive.

But a photo realistic game can also be creative. Stylised designs moves away from realism since they are not intended to look realistic.


We simply define what creativity means in gaming differently, then.  Creation is when something is made that has never existed before.  Look at the new Battlefield 4 trailer.  Every bit of the visual design is based on something that already exists.  It's copying the real world, a simulation.  It's not creative to me because it's not showing us anything new.  Then compare that with another shooter in Gears of War.  High levels of detail in a visual design that's based on things that are new to this world.  That's my perspective when it comes to this subject.  I hope I've been able to explain things well enough.



Stylized(design,animation,art,modeling,ext). I have no desire for realism.



They are both good and needed to add some variety and you can combine them pretty good.

Uncharted shows how it is done.
Realistic but you can see it is full of colour and stuff.Probably the best example for a combination out of those too.

And there are even FPS Game that work well with an Art Style
Timesplitters for example always was that good cause it wasn't military 0815 realistic.
On the other side something like Battlefield 4 only works with as much as possible realism.They try to simulate a serious Battlefield.

Realism is great for a lot of genres and styles.
But "Art games" have their place too - Zelda,Mario Galaxy,BioInfinite,Journey and co show how insanely good those games can look.
A Journey wouldn't work with a realistic style - It lives through the style and the emotion it generates.

Always depends on the game.



As others who posted before me, I don't agree with how the question was made either... Realism can indeed be creative. It's a perfectly valid artistic choice that requires imagination and skill to be crafted. Just because you're creating something that is plausible in our world or similar to the things that surround us doesn't mean that no thought was put into it, no design skills were required, or no message is being expressed visually. I think the question would be better worded as "Fantasy vs Realism"...

Having said that... I generally find realism unappealing to me in all media, and this is specially true for videogames and animation. The way I see it, realism tends to limit the scope of your expression by having to subscribe to the rules of our world and the things we know exist, therefore ending up with less distinctive designs/stories/gameplay. This, again to me, needs to be justified somehow by what you're expressing, and with enough creativity to offer variety within it, which is something I don't often see in gaming...

On the other hand, I believe that "stylized" designs/stories can express pretty much anything that realism allows, with the sole requirement of having enough suspension of disbelief. Once you get past that, you can express any emotion and tell any kind of story, without any other barrier than your own imagination. And the reason why I say this is specially true for games/animation is that these mediums are more capable of portraying said concepts visually, while movies will always have the edge when it comes to realism.

In the end, both "currents" are obviously needed in all artistic media... Variety is the spice of life, after all. The problem to me is that, in the current game industry, realism in general seems to be more valued and respected than fantasy by developers and critics, going hand in hand with technological improvements (which can also be applied to fantasy people !), and many times supported by the old notion that fantasy is in general for children or "cheap" (easy to do, easy to please). Of course, I wholeheartedly disagree with that...



Around the Network

I prefer creativity, with great lighting, shadows, detailed textures, no jaggies. No necessity on being real.



Neither.

Good art is functional, not creative. It serves the gameplay and world. If you're noticing it when it's not usefully trying to get your attention, it's probably bad. Ideas are cheap and can be made on the spot; execution take time and talent. The creativity myth is the #1 problem with the industry today.

Realism is restrictive on the kind of world the player experiences, not on developer creativity.

I think Mario Sunshine is the best a game ever need look to illustrate the mechanics and ideas of a game world.



Creativity all the way.

Mario Galaxy, Muramasa, and Kirby's Epic Yarn were some of the best looking games of the 7th gen to me despite being on the underpowered Wii.

Realistic games can look stunning when they come out. Then a new generation arrives, or the same generation progresses, and they lose their sparkle. But a game with creative visuals, it can shine on long after it becomes technologically outdated.



Hm, I see people are confusing things here massively. This is also realistic:



Please, stop mixing up "creativeness" with graphic style.



Killzone never seemed realistic to me. Something about the art style just prevents that. Same with God of War and Uncharted.



4 ≈ One